by Ginger Betzer

Created on: March 15, 2009   Last Updated: March 17, 2009

The people of Connecticut were outraged this week over a proposal baning the Catholic diocese from controlling Parish finances. The Conneticut state capital was barraged with phone calls and e-mails calling the bill unconstitutional and a violation of separation of church and state. House republican, Larry Cafero, is criticizing the bill introduced by democrats. The idea originated from Greenwich resident, Tom Gallagher, who called for changes to the Religious Corporation Act providing more control on spending to create an atmosphere of mutual responsibility and respect. Key administrative duties would be dispersed among many talented people, placing financial spending stresses on others besides the Bishops and pastors. This bill,Gallagher suggests, would give Catholics in Connecticut more control over their own parish finances.

Several claims have been made suggesting that the actions of Mike Lawlor and Sen Adrew McDonald, two openly gay legislative champions who are strong supporters of the bill, are motivated by "revenge" towards the Catholic church. As major supports of the bill, they have been accused of "pay-back" for the Catholic influence on the defeat of the "gay marriage" bill late last year. They suggest a "look to civil law" to reform parishes controlled by bishops and pastors who have misappropriated funds and have little accountability to their lay members.

The arguments against this bill are many, and while, on the surface, the bill seems like nothing more than a step in the direction of socialism and more government control, there are several good arguments for it's acceptance. According to reports as of March 10, 2009, the bill is no longer being promoted due to protests against it. It will undoubtedly be re-considered in the future, as will "gay" marriage, and every other bill connected with the changing of America's self-perceptions. But, if this bill is written as it is represented in the media, a recruiting of Parish members who have expertise in areas of financial administration to, as a committee, appropriate the funds of the church, many say....why not?

In light of the Delray beach scandal, where the Bishops there were charged with misappropriating over 8.6 million dollars of the church's money for travel, rare coins and luxuries, change in the structure of Parish spending is needed. Past misappropriations are cited as evidence for change. Bishop Francis Guinan admitted to stealing $480,000 from his congregates, and Bishop John Skehan, 100,000. It seems the Catholic church is a bit deficient in controlling the actions of it's clergy, in the areas of financial crimes. It is the business of the state to intervene in matters of morality connected with other crimes. Is financial immorality off limits. If so, Why?

The bill does not suggest that government appointed trustees will be able to have control of the funds of the church, it only makes ways for accountability to occur within the Parish itself. While some find it objectionable for church members to view and contribute to decisions related to the spending of it's own contributions, at the government's intervention, many find it a plausible solution. The fear of an over-intrusive government with America's scenario ending up like a Ayn Rand novel has little credence in this case. As we have seen, even men dedicated to upholding morality and faith, have temptations that can be tried to it's limits. When sitting alone in a quiet office with 1000's of dollars in contributions to the church in front of you, wouldn't it be nice to have a few others there, also, saying "How shall we allocate this offering?" It would be liberating.

Learn more about this author, Ginger Betzer.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.